1. DK on March 3, 2005 11:42 AM writes...

community is the holy grail when it comes to being successful - whether you're a brand or a blogger. when was the last time you heard that something failed because of its community? community is strength...i blogged about it on the psfk.com site in reference to brands and community - http://www.psfk.com/2005/02/when_community_.html

dk

2. Jake on March 3, 2005 12:10 PM writes...

Well, there's two ways to look at the "over time" bit...

1. Over time can be any length of time. That day or two days actually is "over time"... just a short time

2. Successful/strong community vs. community. A community, as you metion can be as short as a day... or even less. Technically, a brainstorming session is a "community" because the people are interacting about a shared object. But the success from a long term perspective of that community versus a community where people get to know each other over years is going to be much much smaller.

So I guess it really comes down to two questions:

- What can possibly be defined as "community"?
- What is successful community?

And of course, even then you can argue that a brainstorming session is both a community and a successful community.

But to me, this simply makes the definition too broad and takes the focus off of what we're really here to develop.

Very good challenges though. You've prompted me to do some more blogging about this topic!

3. Christopher Carfi on March 3, 2005 12:22 PM writes...

I think the "relationships over time" aspect is *critical* to the idea of community. Without the intent to continue to contribute over time, we're just talking about transactions...a series of "one-day stands," if you will.

Clay writes "Community != Content." Bingo. There's more than just the words in the comments or in the discussion forum. There are the mores that evolve (over time, natch) of the tone of the community. Is it serious? Snarky? Irreverant? Pithy? Well-considered? None of those community traits can emerge in the course of a day. Or even a month, I'd argue.

Without the time and relationship aspects, the type of "community" you suggest runs the risk of being a zero-sum game, where one makes a point without needing to consider the affect on the other members of the conversation, or the longer-term affects of the participation itself.

4. Christopher Carfi on March 3, 2005 12:49 PM writes...

(affect = effect. twice. d'oh.)

5. jennifer rice on March 3, 2005 01:48 PM writes...

Jake, I like your comment about community versus successful community. I think that 'relationships over time' is often a characteristic of a successful community.

Just to stir the pot a bit... what do we call the following examples if they're not community?

1. a blog. To me, a successful blog creates a community of readers and contributors (via comments and trackbacks). Yet there may not be any real relationships developed.

2. we say "apple community" or "linux community" to define the group of people who identify themselves with these products. But again, there's no real relationship built over time. Members of the iPod community recognize each other from the white earbuds.

thoughts?

6. Christopher Carfi on March 3, 2005 02:25 PM writes...

Jennifer, I think both the examples you give may be cases where "latent relationships" exist. IOW, the fact that members of the community have invested time (and perhaps some passion) in it may provide a catalyst to developing "real" relationships with others who have done the same when the opportunity arises.

Folks who have participated in a particular blog community (ex. 1 above) over time likely have empassioned feelings about the topics the blog covers. I'd argue that if two folks who both actively participate in a community that has grown up around a blog (or series of related blogs) would be more likely to develop a relationship than folks who didn't have that commonality, if they were, say, seated next to each other on a flight. They may even feel they "know" each other once they realize who the other person "is," based on the realization that each had read the other's thoughts.

Example 2, similar feelings. There may be some "latent relationships" between members of, say, the Apple and Linux communities. On some dimensions (perhaps strong feelings about "design" or "usability" on the Apple front, or "open-ness" on the Linux front), members of each of those communities would perhaps have a stronger "starting place" for relationships with others within the group, once each realized they subscribed to similar worldviews on those dimensions.

7. Dustin on March 3, 2005 02:29 PM writes...

1. A successful blog should develop at least *some* relationships. Any community has its share of residents and visitors. Depending on our commitment to a blog/community, we can see ourselves as established as residents or as transient as tourists. A successful blog probably has its share of both, but does a good job of converting tourists into residents.

2. Focusing on Apple, they really haven't done much to facilitate community other than their MacWorld conferences. What they have done is inspired a fanatical user base to create their own community. There are Mac User Groups (MUGs) all over the world. Apple has users/fans creating websites and homemade ads that they distribute like idea viruses (to borrow from Seth Godin).

Apple has created and keeps creating "insanely great products" while espousing a mantra of antimonopolization, a great user experience, and the merging of computer and soul.

All said, yes they do develop relationships. There is almost an instantaneous bond when two Mac user/fans discover each other. As with Linux, the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" may be at play.

8. Jake on March 3, 2005 03:01 PM writes...

See, this kind of discussion is why I love the Internet.

1. I'd say, as was stated earlier, a blog isn't a community in an of itself. Once you start adding comments (not so much TB) functionality, you have all the tools needed for community. Once users start posting comments, the seeds of community has been planted. But once those users start to form relationships (knowing basic positions/opinions about politics on a political blog, for instance), and after enough time has gone by, THAT is when community actually exists.

2. One of the reasons, IMO, that "community" is so hard for us internet marketing types to define is because so many definitions exist. A community can be a description of property between a married couple, a description of a certain physical/geographical footprint, an Internet virtual meeting space, or (in your "Apple Community" example), a description of a group of people with a shared interest. I don't think that everyone who has bought an iPod is a member of the "Apple Community". Perhaps you can say they are members of the Apple Experience, but certainly not a community. Once they head over to iPodLounge.com and start chatting on a regular basis, they're part of an Apple community. When you show up to your second (not your first) Apple Users Group meeting, then you're part of a community. Just buying a new G5 doesn't include membership into the Apple Community.

9. Steve Portigal on March 3, 2005 04:39 PM writes...

I think there's something interesting online with communities that don't all interact, i.e., the internet phenemonon of the lurker. I've seen this for years, having run a mailing list (Rolling Stones being the topic) since 1992, where a small group of people participate, but a large group of people are "signed up" - having spent so long running an online group and having met so many people in person or in offline conversations, it's clear the lurker is actively engaged in the dialog, the issues, the personalities, etc. without actually saying anything "in public" - they may say nothing, no one may know they exist, or they may only respond privately, but in their mind they are actively participating.

The point, I guess, is that there are many forms of contribution and that sense of belonging that the different forms create is an important driver of community.

10. Gordon on March 3, 2005 08:32 PM writes...

I think we can have both mediated and face2face caommunity. The tools mentioned above help develop a mediated community, but real community only happens over time. I agree with Christopher when he writes: "Without the intent to continue to contribute over time, we're just talking about transactions..."

A group of us been talking about community in the sense of a Church Community and I posted some thoughts on
my blog that you might like to look at.

Gordon

11. Steve S on March 3, 2005 09:17 PM writes...

The key to community is the shared interest. This is the commonality that brings folks together. How long they stay together, what relationships they build is dependent upon themselves and upon the nature of the common interest. It takes two to tango to borrow a phrase.

12. Constantinos Demopoulos on March 3, 2005 09:18 PM writes...

Great point Steve. Internet communities are somewhat unique in that interaction is defined a little more loosely: people feel they are part of a community if they are "actively engaged" but not necessarily saying anything on a message board, through comments on a weblog etc. The lurkers are just as much a part of the community as the participants; they certainly feel as much a part of the community as those that do most of the talking (at least on the many music message boards that i've been on and administered).

And yes, I also strongly agree that the glue that bonds these communities together, apart from the obvious shared interests, is time: the loosely connected parts begin to cement to form very strong communities...at least in my experience at least :)

13. Jake on March 3, 2005 09:43 PM writes...

Very good question - are lurkers as much a part of the community as participants?

14. Wendy on March 3, 2005 10:27 PM writes...

I believe blogs and tools are extensions of our senses, touch, sight, sound, etc. and they are utlized all in an effort to form relations, to share emotions and establish symphathetic bonds, to build relationships. Communities like iPOD and Linux come from common interests and are built on sharing knowledge. Relationships are build on knowledge and emotional energy and whatever the two of you use to stimulate that energy. I believe the "community man" has his definition a little muddied.

15. Ed Brenegar on March 3, 2005 11:15 PM writes...

The test of community is not what we share, but what we are willing to sacrifice to remain apart of it. There are many people I enjoy interacting with online and in person. But there is not shared commitment to one another's welfare that requires my sacrificing my resources to support them.

While I support the emphasis on relationships, my sense is that many of these relationships are ones of convenience. As long as they touch on issues that are important to me, I'll participate. When that changes, I'm moving on.

Community requires commitment that involves sanctions for violating the core values and trust of the community, as well as benefits for full participation and contribution. In traditional communities these cultural norms are understood and act as the social bond that holds the community through hard times.

In my work as a leadership development and strategic visioning specialist, I find that their is a value in community held by people, but an unwillingness to establish the social structure that support it. Without that structure, these are not relationships so much as acquaintances.

The question of a "successful" community was raised in the comments. By what criteria do we judge a community? I used to ask clients after I had developed a comfortable level of communication with them the following question: "If you were to become a total failure in the work that you do, who would stand with you in your humiliation." More times that I care to admit, they did not have an answer. They did not know who truly cared for them. Too often not even their spouse.

Genuine community requires commitment,sacrifice and a level of intimacy that online interaction is virtually unable to provide. That doesn't mean that those relationships lack value or integrity, just that they are not the kind that constitute community.

16. Dan D. on March 3, 2005 11:48 PM writes...

The internet is the world's electronic water cooler. When used effectively, can be a tremendous tool for exchanging ideas and experiences. Communtiy itself is defined as people interacting within the same enviroment. I tend to disagree that communties must share a common interest - my neighbors will attest to that!

17. Jake on March 4, 2005 01:18 AM writes...

Wendy, I think we're saying similar things. I'm not sure what you mean about my definition being muddied. For what it's worth, I'm not sure I agree that "ipod" is a community.

Dan, I wholeheartedly, and respectfully disagree with this statement:

"Communtiy itself is defined as people interacting within the same enviroment. "

So a community is shoppers a local grocery store? They're all interacting, in some way, in the same environment, right? What makes them a community beyond the fact that they're standing in the same physical space?

You also said: "I tend to disagree that communties must share a common interest - my neighbors will attest to that!"

So what makes a community any different than a group? If there's nothing shared, nothing common, aren't they just ships passing in the night?

18. Pepita on March 4, 2005 03:51 AM writes...

A very interesting topic and inspiring for a philosophical essay I am writing. The topic is 'Gemeinschaft'(German for community) vs. 'Gesellschaft' (German for society). To me the way Jennifer defines community it implicitly has a purpose. And from a sociological point of view that sounds like an organization. You have a goal, you work together, when you are done you split up. Some organizations stay together for a long long time, some want to but can't keep it together and go belly up, some last for as long as it takes to make up a grocery shopping list. Communities have a lot in common, but do not have a common goal, apart maybe from survival.

Communities (although you could probably define it in a hundred ways - philosophical and sociological definitions differ for instance) to me are groups of people 'living together' in some way over a period of time. Participants have shared values, newcomers have to go through a process of socialization. The congruence of values and the process of socialization are what takes time. And I would say that in the past proximity was important.

Can the internet and whatever tool you use in trying to create communities overcome the proximity aspect? Possible but not necessarily so. Using such tools with the GOAL to create a community is all very rational and instrumental (think Max Weber). I don't think communities come into existence like that, as they are value based (again, think Max Weber). In other words, a community comes to life based on shared values or it doesn't. It has more of an evolutionary feel to it than an organized feel.

Am I a member of the Corante community? At this point I am not. I would have to find you if we all share values. I would have to find out who 'we all' are. And then even on the web there is some kind of socialization process.

So what does it mean for marketing and branding purposes? I think you can try to stimulate the creation of a community, but it is really up to the participants and time to see if it comes to life.

19. Robert Karls Stonjek on March 4, 2005 04:52 AM writes...

‘Community’ has become a term with numerous contextual connotations that makes it difficult to pin down just what the essence of ‘community’ is, but the term, originally an extension of the word ‘common’ (from Latin communis), perhaps can best be understood by looking at some form of archetypal community.

In particular, let’s consider the simplest form of community formed of a group of people isolated in some remote location in our distant past contrasted against a similar group of people that isn’t a community.

Our first observation is that proximity alone is insufficient to call a group of people a community. Personal relationships between individuals can form within or outside a community, and two people living alone but in a relationship are not generally considered a community of two.

What differentiates the community from a simple gathering is a shared set of agreed protocols that forms an interactional structure into which members form nodes within that structure. Members can join or leave the structure. Structures may form among members of several other structures.

A person can be within a community (of the classic urban type) and yet feel quite alienated. The community must accept members, and members must be willing to give up something to the community. It is with these collected ‘somethings’ which form the substance of a community.

The nature of the ‘something’, the type of structure that forms and the number and type of nodes available will vary from community to community.

Let’s consider a primeval community of humans. I (as a member) give up consummating my spontaneous urges (to eat, kill, sleep, defecate, have sex with anyone I can force, take from whomever I can bully) and agree to follow the tribal traditions. I give my energy and abilities to the tribe. I have a place in the tribe. I receive protection and security etc.

In a blogging community, I give: time; attention; thought; perhaps understanding (ie I listen to others and don’t just blow my own horn for quick return of ego satisfaction), and I take my place as a node, in this case reader or writer, host etc.

Thus the essence of community for the individual is in the willingness of participants to follow some form of protocol, to give up something to the community, and for the community it is the structure formed of, for instance, protocols, and of having members to utilise that structure and become nodes, and to willingly give up the something which will differentiate a real community from simply a good idea.

Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek

20. Sue Pelletier on March 4, 2005 01:21 PM writes...

As I began reading all this, I was struggling with the idea that you have to sacrifice something, give something up to the group,in order for it to be a community. But it does make sense--there needs to be some form of commitment to the group for it to be more than just a loosely connected bunch of people.

When it comes to a blog community, how is that commitment manifested? What do lurkers bring to the community? Well, they do commit the time to read it, so I'd say they are members.

Does the differing level of commitment among members make some "more equal" than others in the community hierarchy? That sure seems to be the case with many communities I belong to, from churches to professional associations. Do communities have to be hierarchical? My gut says no, but most,if not all, I'm associated with are.

Sorry for all the questions, but I'd be curious to hear what others think.

21. Jake on March 5, 2005 12:20 AM writes...

Good stuff Robert!

22. Robert Karls Stonjek on March 5, 2005 04:51 AM writes...

I think of community with a community of cells, all working together though they are independent life forms just as we are…..well, maybe not so independent.

Community and culture are two sides of the same coin, but on very different scales. We usually think of community as groupings from a few individuals to a few thousand, though we merrily make the leap to a world community.

Both community and culture can be short lived, but we tend to think of the culture that has lasted from before we happened along to long after we’ve parted ways. But culture is *always* carried by a community of some kind, and it is to this embedded element of community that we both give some of our time and energy and from which we draw the mental software required to operate in the community – language, for instance.

One of the most identifiable ‘structures’ of the larger community we are part of is language. Language is part of culture, and culture is the corpus of larger communities (by that name ie we don’t usually, but could, speak of the culture of the IPod user community).

So, now I’ve given you some meat for the bones I offered earlier :)

Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek

PS interesting places to be:
Mind and Brain http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain 280 members
Evolutionary Psychology (Hard to get into, Email me with subject line ‘[Evol-Psych] – Join’ 3500 members including numerous scientists and authors.
Stonjek@ozemail.com.au (the spammers already have my address :(

23. Tom Asacker on March 5, 2005 09:17 AM writes...

Great discussion on a very important subject matter. For my purpose - which is to help organizations strengthen their bonds with customers (aka their brand) - I would define community as a group of people sharing a common passion. That passion may be for their neighborhood, their motorcycles (and its associative lifestyle), their love of literature, etc. However, if their is no passion, their is no community. Since it takes passion to grow it and to hold it together under difficult times.

24. Justin Wilden on March 5, 2005 10:57 PM writes...

I pose the question: Doesn’t the participant decide if they are a part of the community?

Jennifer says: “…I write a blog post that generates discussion: readers make comments on both my post and on other readers' comments. I've formed a community, but it will only last a day... 2 days if we're lucky.”

Jennifer’s perspective, as the “content owner”, is unique; every participant’s interaction helps to create her view of the community. But it doesn’t mean that each participant feels that they are a part of the community.

There is a top-down and bottom-up view of community.

The top-down view is a generic view. For example, I own a Mac therefore people tend to see me as “one of them”. But as Dustin writes, "…Apple, … really haven't done much to facilitate community…” and since I don’t attend any Mac User clubs I don’t feel that I’m a part of the Apple community - Apples’ loss.

The bottom-up view is about how the person “feels” towards the community. I have contributed today by posting this message, but – and this is the important element - I do not feel that I am a part of a community. I do not know anyone here and unless I maintain a higher level of participation and get to know you then I see this as only a forum.

It is my decision as to when and if I’m a part of a community. This bottom-up view is what business or blog owners need to consider in forming and evolving their community. If you want a community to thrive you must make relationships, and that is not likely to happen in a two-day discussion.

25. Robert Karls Stonjek on March 6, 2005 06:04 AM writes...

Regarding ‘Top Down’ and ‘Bottom up’, and taking a somewhat broader view…
The ‘Top-Down’ element of a community (assuming, for simplicity, a community into which one is born and later becomes part of) is the set of protocols, rules, traditions etc (the culture) within which one must find a place.

The ‘Bottom-Up’ element is the set of genetic behavioural predispositions which enable humans to form communities such that any group of people living together and in isolation will form a community.

Thus we would expect to find the ‘buds’ of community in the behaviour of humans, even in children and adolescents. The non-society forming individuals, psychopaths (also known as sociopaths), don’t have or only have weakly this societal forming element. It presents to the conscious mind as feelings of guilt, empathy, Love and so on, and where these emotions are present, cooperation results and societies will subsequently form.

Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek